Jones v. PA State Attorney General et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM ORDER - To the extent that Jones seeks out assurance that we will endeavor to promptly address the merits of his petition, he may rest assured that we will. Therefore, a motion to compel us not to delay consideration of this matter is unnecessary, and the motions to compel filed by Jones, (Docs. 52 and 56.) are DENIED. Jones motions for bail (Docs. 53, 57, and 60.) are also DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on May 13, 2015. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC KENNETH JONES,
Petitioner,
v.
VINCENT MOONEY, et al.,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:13-CV-2526
(Judge Kane)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The above-captioned state prisoner habeas corpus petition has been referred to
the undersigned for resolution. Upon receipt of this case assignment we noted that
there are a series of motions for release from custody filed by the petitioner, coupled
with motions to compel us to expedite resolution of this matter. (Docs. 52, 53, 56,
57, 60.)
To the extent that Jones seeks out assurance that we will endeavor to promptly
address the merits of his petition, he may rest assured that we will. Therefore, a
motion to compel us not to delay consideration of this matter is unnecessary, and the
motions to compel filed by Jones, (Docs. 52 and 56.) are DENIED.
Jones’ motions for bail (Docs. 53, 57, and 60.) are also DENIED.

As an inmate serving a criminal sentence, Jones must make a demanding
showing to justify release from custody pending litigation of his habeas corpus
petition. With respect to such bail requests by inmate habeas petitioners:
[C]ourts that have been faced with requests for bail prior to ruling on a
habeas petition have developed standards requiring that a habeas
petitioner (1) make out a clear case for habeas relief on the law and
facts, or (2) establish that exceptional circumstances exist warranting
special treatment, or both. See, e.g., Eaton v. Holbrook, 671 F.2d 670,
670 (1st Cir.1982); Iuteri v. Nardoza, 662 F.2d 159, 161 (2d Cir.1981);
Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir.1974).
Lucas v. Hadden, 790 F.2d 365, 367 (3d Cir. 1986).
In this case, we find that Jones has not met this demanding standard of proof
justifying release pending the resolution of this petition. At the outset, Jones does not
show any “exceptional circumstances” justifying release from custody in his motion.
Thus, he fails to make any claim that would bring his petition within that narrow
realm of extraordinary cases where release pending resolution of the habeas petition
is appropriate. In short, until Jones both makes out a clear case for habeas relief on
the law and facts, and demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist warranting
special treatment, we cannot entertain his motion for release. Therefore, the motion
must be denied, without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2015.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

2